Voting in US - What's the point?

[Deleted]

Could be worse. Here in the uk we have a system were 24% of the total electorate is enough to secure a victory in a general election.

We even have a situation where one party had 3,881,099 votes and only got 1 seat in the government yet another party with 1,454,436 votes got 56 seats.

[MasterOfNone]

It is truly a joke. How is it a democracy when the decision made by majority of the people doesn't count?

so from this post i can assume you were anti-trump, which is fine, but let me ask you this. if you dont like the system, would you have griped if the electoral was in your candidates favor as opposed to the current situation? guessing you wouldnt be bitching then. also, how much how much "change" of the system have you postulated to your local congressman? im guessing none also. its really easy to sit back on your hands and bitch about a problem when you dont help to change it. this is a simple cycle of politics in america and its been this way for ages. not sure why all the anti-trump folks dont get this. we had obama 2 terms. he made little palpable change, so then the cycle for trump begins. he will go a couple terms more than likely, and then a dem again. this notion that the popular vote doesnt mean anything like its new is stupid at best. everyone knows its flawed. has been for decades, but now that its a candidate that you dont like, its gotta change RIGHT NOW huh?

[Listrata]

We even have a situation where one party had 3,881,099 votes and only got 1 seat in the government yet another party with 1,454,436 votes got 56 seats.

Are seats representative of the number of regions? Did 1 region have 3,881,099 votes for party A and 56 regions with small populations vote in party B with 25,972 votes each?


If so that is democracy at work. The larger vote may have elected your leader but the region would have representation in lawmaking. One party could win both if the smaller regions had the same views.

[XangXu]

In an age where counting votes electronically is so easy, there should be no reason for an electoral vote.


1 Vote per 1 Individual, I think, is the most honest way to do it. It's not hard.

It would also inspire people to get out and vote more if they knew how it worked.

[Listrata]

In short they have the EC so when the population votes for an idiot they can overrule it.

Seem very crude when said that way. The EC is not one entity. The people (which yes are questionable chosen) are told how to vote by the state they represent. So it's not completely fool proof in blocking a moron. It is more like a house of representatives that votes for its state. But some states also have strange rules that have to be looked at individually and not as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -

In an age where counting votes electronically is so easy, there should be no reason for an electoral vote.


1 Vote per 1 Individual, I think, is the most honest way to do it. It's not hard.

Learn about how the EC works. Poster above added some videos you should look at to start with.

[RobertMugabe]

Okay Ill bite. When the voting rules were set up the founding fathers wanted to avoid NY and PA picking every president because of their population. They could foresee big states with big populations having too much power ensuring they got all the attention while small states got screwed over.

What we got was the EC which is basically a mix of how we do the Senate (equal Rep for all States) and the House of Representatives (Rep by population). Big states still have a lot of voting power but small states are given a boost so they can effect an election and thus wont be ignored.

And what the US got now is a system were basically only a couple of states decide everything. That system didn't make anything better, only worse.

[TirielWoW]

I dont understand the appeal of this solution. I mean it either ends up as usual, that is to say one rep and one dem, or just two candidates of the same party, which results in voters of the other party not even bothering to vote (and really why should they?) as has happened for example in Senate elections in California this year which had a noticeably lower turnout than the presidential election.

The appeal is that it breaks party loyalty by quite a bit. You end up with candidates closer to the middle, overall, because most of the population is actually moderate. Instead of a tiny minority of each party throwing an extremely polarized candidate into the ring.

[Listrata]

And what the US got now is a system were basically only a couple of states decide everything. That system didn't make anything better, only worse.

I like to think I'm open minded and so then consider my view point depends on which side of the grassy hill I'm on. It may just seem greener from where I'm standing.

[Kalis]

Are seats representative of the number of regions? Did 1 region have 3,881,099 votes for party A and 56 regions with small populations vote in party B with 25,972 votes each?


If so that is democracy at work. The larger vote may have elected your leader but the region would have representation in lawmaking. One party could win both if the smaller regions had the same views.

We use first past the post. Regions are roughly the same number of people, but the one that got 56 seats (SNP) had all their votes concentrated in Scotland, the one that got one seat (UKIP) had them spread out over England, which has a much larger population than Scotland (about 53 million people vs. 5 million).

Basically UKIP came in 2nd-4th in lots of regions in England.

[XangXu]

Seem very crude when said that way. The EC is not one entity. The people (which yes are questionable chosen) are told how to vote by the state they represent. So it's not completely fool proof in blocking a moron. It is more like a house of representatives that votes for its state. But some states also have strange rules that have to be looked at individually and not as a whole.

- - - Updated - - -



Learn about how the EC works. Poster above added some videos you should look at to start with.

I did. My response to those videos are "Too bad. We live in the age of the internet now. Everyone has a voice. This excuse of states being treated unfairly is no longer an issue"

[RobertMugabe]

I like to think I'm open minded and so then consider my view point depends on which side of the grassy hill I'm on. It may just seem greener from where I'm standing.

I don't understand what you mean? The EC was a retarted system for me since I've first learned about it.

[Zoranon]

The appeal is that it breaks party loyalty by quite a bit. You end up with candidates closer to the middle, overall, because most of the population is actually moderate. Instead of a tiny minority of each party throwing an extremely polarized candidate into the ring.

That is the theory yes, but it certainly has not happened in California this election.

[Listrata]

We use first past the post. Regions are roughly the same number of people, but the one that got 56 seats (SNP) had all their votes concentrated in Scotland, the one that got one seat (UKIP) had them spread out over England, which has a much larger population than Scotland (about 53 million people vs. 5 million).

With those kinds of odds I can understand why there was an attempt to separate a while back. It's reminiscent but on a much smaller scale to the division in the US. Albeit much more contrasted in your situation being a smaller land mass. It's the same feeling California has at the moment, having big laws possibly changed that will effect them negatively...taxation, immigration, EPA regualtion, etc. But those same things will greatly help the less populated states that voted opposite them.

[ranzino]

In a democracy the minority is always bitten. But as democracy is worshipped as the best invention since sliced bread, a minority opinion is always BS unless the bar is set at "qualified majority" of 2/3 or else.

Per individual vote Cali is able to vote a lot of east coast states population's down. But that's democracy. But if Cali is divided in its opinion, the majority votes of Cali mean nothing if the other states votes unisono with the minority of Cali. Also democracy at work.

[Notchris]

I did. My response to those videos are "Too bad. We live in the age of the internet now. Everyone has a voice. This excuse of states being treated unfairly is no longer an issue"

Wait. How the hell does the internet help smaller states not get buried underneath behemoth states like California or Texas in a popular vote?

[Deleted]

8 years will pass fast don t wary

[ranzino]

Wait. How the hell does the internet help smaller states not get buried underneath behemoth states like California or Texas in a popular vote?

Hard to swallow: majority trumps minority and done and as the president is not the CEO of a commitee of states but pres of the whole population, state level is utter nonsense here. Now lesser states dictate cali the president, but that's fair because what ?

[Listrata]

In a democracy the minority is always bitten. But as democracy is worshipped as the best invention since sliced bread, a minority opinion is always BS unless the bar is set at "qualified majority" of 2/3 or else.

Per individual vote Cali is able to vote a lot of east coast states population's down. But that's democracy. But if Cali is divided in its opinion, the majority votes of Cali mean nothing if the other states votes unisono with the minority of Cali. Also democracy at work.

That would be a nice and even election if the entire country was the size of California. If California's minority won the presidency would California be prepared to accept the same results as this year's election. If you say yes or no it wouldn't matter because that's exactly what happened. IF you hit the rewind button and said this election will be based on popular vote do you really think the number would be the exact same?

Also California votes the way it does because of its cultural identity. And so does every state. States are countries in there own right and there sovereignty is protected. One state should not out way the many.

[Kalis]

With those kinds of odds I can understand why there was an attempt to separate a while back. It's reminiscent but on a much smaller scale to the division in the US. Albeit much more contrasted in your situation being a smaller land mass. It's the same feeling California has at the moment, having big laws possibly changed that will effect them negatively...taxation, immigration, EPA regualtion, etc. But those same things will greatly help the less populated states that voted opposite them.

They are also notoriously moany bastards beyond the wall.

England is more densely populated and creates a far higher tax revenue, which subsidises Wales and Northern Ireland and by England I mean London and the South East, Scotland almost breaks even (or at least almost did before oil prices tanked), so it is not really comparable to California.

[Toppy]

Also bare in mind that with the electoral college system, in particularly blue states (like Massachusetts) or really red states (like Louisianna) people will often choose to not vote, knowing that their state will always go red or blue.

This is why, currently, caring about the popular vote is stupid. If we were using a popular vote system people would have more incentive to vote. One person having more popular vote than another right now means absolutely nothing due to the tendency for people to choose to not vote due to the EC.